Friday, March 24, 2006

Daily Kos Diary About Sandals' Flip-flop

I just posted a diary on Daily Kos about the Sandals flip-flop. I heard that Kos readers have been hostile to Pennacchio supporters. Judge for yourself. Here is my favorite anti-Chuck comment referring to my belief in his campaign, followed by my retort:
Shark Repellent
I'm selling some, and you don't see any sharks around me, so it must work.
by UpstateNYDem on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:05:40 PM PDT

Regarding Sharks

To rip-off Woody Allen: A campaign, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies.

Chuck Pennacchio has appeared at 278 events during his campaign so far. He has personally spoken with over 30,000 democrats in this state. Being a upstate New Yorker, you are obviously not one of them.

Come fight for Chuck in my diary's comments!

Pennacchio and Sandals LIVE on Radio Right Now

I just found out: Pennacchio and Sandals are LIVE on the radio right now. Here is the live stream link:


Here is an archived link that should be up for one week. The interview, conducted by Bob Rovner, was pretty interesting. Both candidates had 1/2 hour to speak--Chuck Pennacchio first and Alan Sandals second. I really wanted to be invigorated by Sandals, but I have to admit that I felt unemotional throughout most of his interview. Chuck was inspirational as always. By the end of his segment, I was cheering, "Go get 'em Chuck!" Sandals had good positions, but he lacked Pennacchio's passion for people-to-people democracy. Reports on Sandals often feature the word "articulate," but he was clearly outspoken by Chuck.

Casey Finally Agrees to Debate Pennacchio and Sandals

It's about freakin' time. Casey has been dodging debates left and right. According to State College's own Centre Daily Times (well, really the AP):
HARRISBURG, Pa.The three Democrats competing for the nomination to take on Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum have tentatively agreed to square off in two debates before the primary.

The format of the debates - April 8 at Slippery Rock University and April 19 at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster - and other details are still being negotiated, the three campaigns said Thursday.

State Treasurer Bob Casey, the front-runner in the May 16 primary race, had originally said he would participate in only one debate. Casey's campaign agreed to two debates at the urging of the debate sponsors, said campaign manager Jay Reiff.

"We are holding time on our schedule right now for both debates while we work out the details," he said.

Chuck Pennacchio, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, and a campaign spokesman for Philadelphia pension lawyer Alan Sandals concurred, although Sandals' spokesman Randy Schulz voiced frustration over the pace of discussions.

"The Casey campaign is a lot less cooperative than they present themselves to be publicly," Schulz said.

The debate in Slippery Rock, about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh, is sponsored by the North Hills Democracy for America chapter and other local Democratic groups. The Lancaster debate is sponsored by Franklin & Marshall College.

You know what's really amazing about this article? The AP refers to Casey as the "front-runner" instead of the "Democratic challenger." FINALLY, they realize that Pennsylvania has a primary election for the US Senate. Hazah and kudos!

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Response From Alan Sandals

Alan Sandals responded to my letter; unfortunately, he evaded its primary intent. While I am extremely grateful that he composed a thoughtful, personal 700 word letter for me in one day's time--if only our current elected representatives were so prompt--I remain irked by his dodging of my abortion question. The third sentence of my letter read as follows:

I would like to know Mr. Sandals' current position on parental notification and consent for abortion.

In fact, the obvious intent of my letter was asking whether or not Sandals changed positions on parental notification and consent for abortion to obtain the NOW PAC endorsement. Sandals did not mention the words "parental, notification, consent," or "abortion" in his letter...Argh! However, Sandals does state that:

[he is] willing to accept contributions from non-business PACs, such as issue advocacy groups and labor and other non-business associations, whose positions on the issues are consistent with [his] own positions.

The only problem is that NOW's position on parental notification and consent for abortion is inconsistent with Sandals' stated position. According to Sandals (August, 2005):

Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate.
According to Washington State NOW:
Laws which pressure young women to carry pregnancies to term are dangerous…Even with judicial by-pass provisions, parental notification laws in other states have caused up to an 18% increase in 2nd trimester abortions due to the delay of telling a parent or going to court. Other states with by-pass provisions have experienced arbitrary and unfair decisions depending on which judge heard the case. Some judges granted all requests and some judges granted none.

So, if Sandals’ position on parental notification and consent for abortion is inconsistent with NOW’s, why did he accept NOW PAC’s contribution? Perhaps he flip-flopped on consent to appease NOW?

Anyway, Alan Sandals’ letter is posted in its entirety below. Give it a read; it’s a good letter. Don’t get me wrong, Sandals would be an excellent alternative to Casey—definitely not as good as Chuck Pennacchio—but I do find the circumstances surrounding his NOW PAC endorsement to be suspect. I have more commentary coming, but this post is already too long.


March 23, 2006

XXXX a/k/a Shlomo Boudreaux

Dear XXXX:

Thank you for your letter of March 22, 2006. Your initial blog post on March 21st stated that my receiving the endorsements of the National Organization for Women PAC and the Feminist Majority PAC was “great news for Pennsylvania.” Your post also revealed that you were disappointed that the endorsements did not go to your preferred candidate, Chuck Pennacchio.

Regarding the concerns stated in your letter, I can respond as follows. First, I cannot speak for the endorsing organizations or describe their evaluative process in selecting me for the endorsement. But during the press conference on March 21, both Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority and Kim Gandy of NOW addressed the reasons for their endorsement decisions. Their March 21 statements explaining the endorsement decisions will be posted shortly on the campaign, website,

Although we do not yet know each other (and I hope to meet you in the near future), I assume you have had an opportunity to research my background of service and legal advocacy for ordinary working people. Unlike my two opponents in the Democratic primary, I have been fighting for Pennsylvanians and against abusive corporate behavior for my entire adult life. My cases to preserve or recover pensions and medical benefits involve great risk and commitment to my clients. This is one of the most difficult areas of legal practice due to the weaknesses and traps of the federal pension and benefits law, ERISA. Most lawyers simply refuse to get involved in these cases because of their difficulty and risk.

On the issue of PAC money, I have made clear in public forums as recently as last Sunday in Northwest Philadelphia that I do not seek and will not accept contributions from PACs organized by businesses or trade associations. In contrast, I am willing to accept contributions from non-business PACs, such as issue advocacy groups and labor and other non-business associations, whose positions on the issues are consistent with my own positions. As you know, federal election laws appropriately place relatively low limits on the amount of direct contributions that a PAC can make to a candidate. Unlike some candidates who solicit and rely on a multitude of PAC contributions from business and non-business sources, my own campaign rejects this approach. In fact, my campaign has not received any PAC money to date.

Despite your personal disappointment about the endorsement outcome, there is no reason for you to doubt my political integrity or my commitment to justice for all Americans. The fact is that I am a lawyer who regularly works to save senior citizens and others from corporate abuses, even to the point of having to watch clients break down on the witness stand due to the financial distress caused by the abuses that I fight against. I never represent management and have no interest in doing that.

During my years at Haverford College, I became familiar with the commencement address by Isaac Sharpless to the class of 1888. I carry around in my briefcase a brochure containing this excerpt from his address:

I suggest that you preach Truth and do Righteousness as you have been taught, whereinsoever that Teaching may commend itself to your Consciences and your Judgments. For your Consciences and your Judgments we have not sought to bind; and see to it that no other Institution, no political Party, no social Circle, no Religious Organization, no pet Ambitions put such chains on you as would tempt you to sacrifice one Iota of the Moral Freedom of your Consciences or the Intellectual Freedom of your Judgments.

This 2006 campaign calls on each of us to “preach Truth and do Righteousness.” I am glad to see that you and so many others I meet are ready to do the hard work of changing our political system to serve the real needs of ordinary citizens. We are running out of precious time to make this change. But, fortunately, my campaigning around the state shows that there is near universal awareness – despite our geographic, economic, social and political party differences – that we have to do this work for ourselves and our children, and that entrenched politicians must join us or get out of the way.

I look forward to meeting you and I appreciate the thought and concern that went into your letter and posts.


Alan Sandals

A Strange Coincidence

Regarding my recent post about Pennacchio and Sandals splitting the progressive vote in the Democratic primary, some one named "rebecca" commented:
[I]f the goal is to get rid of Santorum while remaining true to Democratic values, then Alan Sandals is the candidate to do it. His appeal is broader than Chuck's and will not alienate moderate Republicans and Independents, whose votes any Democratic candidate will need in order to beat Santorum in November.
This was written well before the NOW PAC endorsement went public. I responded:
On what EXACTLY are you basing your statement that Sandals' "appeal is broader than Chuck's and will not alienate moderate Republicans and Independents?" I have seen no polling indicative of this viewpoint. I'm curious to hear your evidence.

I agree that the goal is to remove Santorum from office. In fact, I would certainly choose Sandals over Santorum in an election. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you rationale. Pennacchio and Sandals have very similar positions on most issues. What precisely is so much more radical about Pennacchio than Sandals?

If attracting moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats is the goal, then we should be supporting Casey. If we are trying to fire up the base, then Pennacchio is the answer, because he already seems to have a stronger grassroots following than Sandals. Like I said, I have nothing AGAINST Sandals, I just BELIEVE in Pennacchio.
At the time hers was a peculiar statement, and she is yet to refute my criticism. I didn't really think about it again until Sandals' webmaster responded to my letter. Her name is "Rebecca Cesarz." Isn't it a strange coincidence that a random Sandals supporter who wrote an unfounded argument in the comments has the same first name as Sandals' webmaster? These could very well be two different people. I guess it's not really a big deal, but it just strikes me as interesting.

No Word Yet From Sandals

No word yet from Alan Sandals. Yesterday, I wrote a letter to Alan Sandals' campaign asking about his potential flip-flop on parental notification & consent for abortion in order to get the NOW PAC endorsement. On my way to work, I realized something peculiar about the response from Sandals' webmaster, Rebecca Cesarz, that I received shortly thereafter: why didn't she brush aside my allegation that Sandals' flip-flopped for the NOW PAC endorsement?

If my accusation is false, then why not tell me so before forwarding my letter to Sandals himself? Perhaps she didn't know the answer--I would think she should--but when someone accuses your campaign of impropriety, isn't a quick, direct dismissal of the claim appropriate? Of course, I'm speculating about Ms. Cesarz's motives, but that's because I am awaiting Sandals' response to my letter.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Open Letter to the Alan Sandals Campaign About NOW PAC Endorsement Flip-flop

Did Alan Sandals change his position on parental notification and consent for abortion to curry favor with NOW PAC? Let's get to the bottom of this flip-flop (Sandals...flip-flop...oy) issue. I wrote a letter to the Sandals campaign addressing the matter. Let's see how they respond.
To whom it may concern:

First and foremost, congratulations on the NOW PAC endorsement. It is certainly great news for Pennsylvania that NOW PAC has endorsed someone other than Bob Casey, Jr. for US Senate.

I would like to know Mr. Sandals' current position on parental notification and consent for abortion. According to an interview with () on August 1st, Mr. Sandals stated the following:
My view is to recognize the traditional Roe v. Wade approach. The hardest question, and I appreciate it more now being a father, is how to deal with situations where a parent would appropriately want to know, for all the best reasons, if some procedure were going to be done for a daughter who is a minor. But the laws in most states correctly say that if the minor has reason to fear that there will be some physical violence or some emotional repercussions, then there must be ways to get consent without parental involvement. Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate [emphasis my own].
Recently, I have heard rumors that Mr. Sandals' position on parental notification and consent for abortions has changed. Is he no longer in favor of "limited parental notification and consent requirements?" If this is the case, I find it quite troubling in light of the NOW PAC endorsement. My immediate assumption would be that Mr. Sandals changed his position in order to curry favor with NOW PAC. While I approve of Mr. Sandals as a pro-choice candidate, I am concerned about his susceptibility to special interests. If this is all bogus, please correct me. I'll be happy. But if he changed his mind on this issue--on any issue--because an interest group offered him money and publicity, then who knows where his allegiances are. Will Mr. Sandals change his mind when ExxonMobil, Citibank, or Alcoa offers him money?

Shlomo Boudreaux

Blogger keeps giving me an html error for the link to PoliticsPhilly. See my previous post for the link.


The Sandals campaign forwarded my letter to Alan Sandals himself. More to come...
From: Rebecca Cesarz
To: The Cajun Jew
Date: Mar 22, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Mr. Sandals' position on parental notification and consent for abortion
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?

Dear Schlomo.

I have forwarded your email to Alan.

Thanks for contacting the campaign.

Rebecca Cesarz


Alan Sandals for US Senate

Did Alan Sandals Flip-Flop to Get the NOW PAC Endorsement?

I've seen some buzz that it looks like Sandals might have flip-flopped to get the endorsement from NOW PAC. According to an interview on PoliticsPhilly from August 1st, 2005, Sandals said:
My view is to recognize the traditional Roe v. Wade approach. The hardest question, and I appreciate it more now being a father, is how to deal with situations where a parent would appropriately want to know, for all the best reasons, if some procedure were going to be done for a daughter who is a minor. But the laws in most states correctly say that if the minor has reason to fear that there will be some physical violence or some emotional repercussions, then there must be ways to get consent without parental involvement. Limited parental notification and consent requirements are about the only condition or qualification that I would think is appropriate [emphasis my own].
Some bloggers (here and here) have posted that Sandals' position on parental notification has conveniently changed just in time to get the NOW PAC endorsement. Pennacchio still supports parental notification (not approval) for abortions, with qualified exceptions, of course. Sandals might have just changed his mind on that. This sounds like cover for NOW PAC to endorse the pro-choice candidate, Sandals, who will accept PAC money over the more qualified and successful pro-choice candidate, Pennacchio who won't. This sounds fishy...

I'm not trying to smear Sandals here, and if this is all bogus, please correct me, I'll be happy. But if he changed his mind on this issue--on any issue--because an interest group offered him money and publicity, then who knows where his allegiances are. Will Sandals change his mind when ExxonMobil, Citibank, or Alcoa offers him money? This is exactly why I support Chuck Pennacchio: by not taking any PAC money, Pennacchio is not beholden to their interests.


I fixed the broken link to the PoliticsPhilly interview. Sorry about that.

NOW Endorses Sandals: Why Didn't They Endorse Pennacchio?

Well, this certainly is some big news.

Immediately, my reaction was one of disappointment. This is bad news for Chuck, I thought. Chuck's message is finally starting to sink in across Pennsylvania and the publicity from an endorsement by the National Organization for Women could have really jumpstarted his campaign. Hearing NOW PAC endorse Sandals was quite a shock to my system. Why on Earth would NOW PAC endorse the progressive candidate with less grassroots support? Why would they ignore Pennacchio's political experience and support a neophyte like Sandals, when their positions are pretty much the same? On the face of it, this doesn't really make sense. So what's the deal?

NOW PAC claims that Sandals "will best protect and advance our rights in the U.S. Senate." As if Pennacchio wouldn't do the same. Sandals' website claims that, "Alan is pro choice; he believes that abortions should be safe, legal and rare." That sounds a quite similar to what Pennacchio's website says: "Chuck believes that abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Except that Chuck's website continues with the following:
He believes that a woman's right to have control over her own reproductive choice is inviolate, and as our Senator, he will stand up to protect this fundamental Constitutional guarantee. While people of good conscience disagree on the propriety of abortions, it is the right of a woman to determine whether abortion is appropriate or not.
So, save me the garbage about Sandals being better on abortion.

For all things political, the answer, of course, is money. Think about it, NOW PAC--like any political action committee--is an organization that works to elect candidates who support their special interests. NOW PAC will assist the Sandals' campaign with money and publicity in exchange for his support when legislation they care about comes to the Senate floor. Effectively, Sandals is beholden to this interest group

Chuck Pennacchio, on the other hand, refuses to accept PAC money of any stripe. Despite the fact that Pennacchio vehemently favors reproductive rights, he will not be beholden to any interest group, including those with whom he agrees politically.

So, think about it from NOW PAC's perspective. They want to spend money on a candidate who they can have in their back pocket. Sandals and Pennacchio are rather similar on the issues, but Pennacchio doesn't want to be under their thumb. Bingo! Sandals is their man. Regardless of the fact that Chuck has political experience and is in a better position statewide, NOW PAC, by its very nature, cannot support Chuck Pennacchio.

With this endorsement, Sandals is back in business. Earlier, I posted on my worries about Pennacchio and Sandals splitting the progressive vote (here and here). I had not heard much from Sandals' campaign and was hoping that he would fade away, leaving Pennacchio as the sole competitor to Bob Casey, Jr. With NOW PAC dumping money and publicity into Sandals' campaign, it looks like that won't be happening.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

BREAKING: NOW PAC Endorses Alan Sandals!

The National Organization for Women's (NOW) has endorsed Alan Sandals for Pennsylvania's contested US Senate seat. This is huge. I definitely would have preferred an endorsement of Chuck Pennacchio, but NOW's endorsement of someone other than Bob Casey is great news for Pennsylvania.

More to come...


To be correct, NOW PAC has endorsed Sandals, not NOW itself. Technically, only NOW's political action committee has endorsed Sandals, not the organization itself. Thanks to nepa tom for pointing out this typo in the comments!

Monday, March 20, 2006

Pro-Casey Fools in the Blogosphere: Part II

My criticism of the blogger at YoungPhillyPolitics was met with a lengthy, well-written retort. It's always refreshing to have an intelligent critique. Regardless, I still think that the original author was way off base in his attack on Chuck Pennacchio. Here is the response by DanielUA:
First, you know, Alex was over the top here. He actually said so in this post. But, you know what else what [sic] that post pointed out? That Chuck's little ode to Santorum was completely stupid. The very next day, GOP lawyers kicked Featherman off the ballot. How honorable! I know that Chuck does not like Santorum, but when he says things like that, he is feeding into the BS frame that Santorum is principled, when he is anything but. It was a really dumb thing to say, made to look even sillier by what Santorum did to his opponent the very next day.
In my estimation, Chuck's first words to describe Santorum would not be "honorable" and "principled." Just because a person (Santorum) is corrupt and shameless, does not mean that he cannot, from time to time, do something respectable. Frankly, Santorum's extending a debate to his challenger was the right thing to do. Yes, GOP lawyers pressured Featherman off the ballot, but challenging the signatures of someone who barely made it onto the ballot is not abnormal. As much as we loathe Santorum, he is not a hideous demon sent from the depths of Hell. Even the worst person can do something right now and again. Besides, Chuck was criticizing Casey more than applauding Santorum. Here is how I responded:
I don't understand why Alex had to spew so much vitriol toward Chuck. If you claim to be a progressive and don't think Chuck's candidacy is viable, that's fine. Be that as it may, an angry, childish rant about a fellow progressive does little to help the cause, especially when it is picked up by Santorumblog. I did read Alex's statement about being "over the top," but I remain displeased with his original post, which was rather unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a progressive. What is the point for progressives to attack Pennacchio?

To be honest, I don't see how Chuck's post can be described as a "little ode to Santorum." More than anything, it was a criticism of Casey for being unprincipled and lacking the chutzpah to debate Chuck. I think that you, Chuck, and I agree that Rick Santorum is a horrible Senator. Yes, he is corrupt and unprincipled, but at least he had the courage to offer Featherman a debate. Chuck was not calling Santorum an honorable person overall; rather, he was reflecting solely on Santorum's willingness to debate Featherman in contrast to Casey's discourteous behavior. Regarding the GOP lawyers: if Pennacchio had submitted the bare minimum number of signatures, don't you think Casey would have had the Democrats' lawyers involved?

DanielUA continued:

Second, I have 1)spoke with Chuck on a conference call, 2)heard him speak in person, twice, 3)watched the whole TV interview he has posted on his site, 4) listened to the entire radio times interview. I have also read his blog regularly, promoted Albert's post to the front page here about Chuck, been interviewed about his candidacy by the print media multiple times. So, you know, I think I am pretty well informed. I am also a pretty progressive person. And, you know what? I cannot take Chuck seriously, period.

Take the radio interview as an example. Chuck was asked about his position on Iraq (that we should withdraw within 10 to 12 weeks). He said, in a moment of bizarreness, that Jack Murtha, when coming out strongly against the war, was "following" his lead. Jack Murtha was following Chuck? Really? Do you think Jack Murtha had ever heard of Chuck? Do you think Jack Murtha had ever been influenced by Chuck? Hell, I think we should withdraw from Iraq, and I thought the war was a terrible error. Maybe Jack Murtha is following my lead!
I'm glad to hear that DanielUA is so well-informed about Chuck Pennacchio. It's too bad that he is also vehemently opposed to Pennacchio's candidacy. I find it odd that fellow progressives feel the need to attack Pennacchio. In other words, what good is produced by ridiculing someone who shares your own beliefs? If they choose to believe that Pennacchio doesn't stand a chance against Casey, that's fine. Pennacchio is standing up for progressive beliefs because Bob Casey will not. Perhaps the Murtha comment was kind of odd, but what's the big deal? At least Pennacchio wants to get out of Iraq ASAP unlike Casey. Furthermore, Pennacchio doesn't have paid speech writers and political consultants, so occasionally he will say something peculiar. If saying weird things kept people out of office, someone else would be in the White House.

Then DanielUA wrote:

What Chuck does not seem to get is that just saying that you have progressive positions has never, ever been enough to get someone elected. EVER. You are probably progressive, right? If you declare for Senate next time, should I vote for you?The blunt reality is that as nice and principled as Chuck and Alan Sandals are, they would not likelly [sic] win a race for City Council. Assuming they can go straight to the very, very top without millions upon millions of dollars is a little off.
DanielUA is pretty down on Chuck Pennacchio. I don't deny that the odds are against Pennacchio. That, however, doesn't change that I believe in Pennacchio. Nor does it change the fact that Pennacchio's platform is far more in line with my own beliefs (and those of most Democrats) than Bob Casey's. I think it's pretty sad when a liberal blogger writes off a candidate because he doesn't have much money. I'm not going to support Bob Casey in the primary just because he has lots of money. The conclusion of my comment to DanielUA was a follows:
Let me ask you: what precisely should Chuck do, besides have progressive values, to get elected? I get the impression that, in your eyes, money is more important than values. Are you suggesting that a candidate needs millions of dollars to be worth our time? That sounds rather antithetical to the grassroots movement. I for one am not going to support a candidate with money and no values. I respect Chuck Pennacchio's positions and will vote with my conscience.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Pro-Casey Fools in the Blogosphere

Idiocy abounds...

While searching for recent blog posts about Chuck Pennacchio, I came across this childish diatribe from a Casey Jr. supporter:

Chuck Pennacchio is either a complete fool or a Santorum tool. How else can you explain the blithering nonsense that Adam B points to over at Daily Kos? But first, queue the violin music, cause this here is a Penanchio[sic]-Santorum love fest (the stuff in italics is me inserting words Chuck wanted to express but couldn't because his heart runith over):

For those of you who wonder about Santorum, yes, he's got an easy smile, he's very engaging, and he's personable. He also has a chiseled chin, sumptuous lips, and eyelashes that set my heart on fire every time he winks approvingly at me and my campaign. One on one, he's charming and has a genuine gift for retail politics. These are the skills that make him a formidable opponent and, unlike that big meany, Bob Casey, a wonderful human being. It's not until he starts talking (and legislating) ideas that things get scary. So scary that I jump right in his arms and beg him to hold me in his strong protective grasp!

Oy, this is one of the most offensive and idiotic criticisms of any candidate that I have ever heard--unfortunately, it's just an excerpt. Sadly, it's this kind of garbage that makes bloggers look bad. Posts like this further the perception of bloggers as ill-informed partisans without credentials. Feeling outraged, I responded with a comment (also an excerpt to save space). I tried not to be angry, but a little ire slipped through.

Have either of you actually heard Chuck Pennacchio speak? Pennacchio is devoted, honest and believable. Furthermore, he actually holds traditionally Democratic values, unlike Bob Casey, Jr.

Anyone who does not recognize that Rick Santorum is a formidable opponent with a history of electoral success in Pennsylvania is a fool. Your attempt at satire was both ignorant and offensive. If you disagree with Pennacchio's politics, that is fine. When offering your support of Casey, a thoughtful well-reasoned essay is much more effective than questioning his sexuality through a childish diatribe calling his opponent stupid. To be frank, your post has done a disservice to Democrats. "Santorumblog" has used your post as an example of Democratic hypocrisy. Here is a link.

Before you write an angry, ill-informed critique of my comment, I suggest that you learn a little bit about Chuck Pennacchio. Here is a link to a radio interview with Chuck Pennacchio. Give it a listen before you write him off.

And no, I am not a paid tool for Rick Santorum. I am just one of many people who BELIEVE in Chuck Pennacchio.

It's perfectly acceptable to have legitimate debate about Pennacchio and Casey--indeed, it's a necessary condition for a Democracy to function--but let's try to be a bit more rational in our arguments folks. Sadly, but truthfully, Santorumblog has used the post in question as an example of Democrats "Eating their own." While I have to admit that plenty of establishment Democrats are attacking Chuck Pennacchio and his supporters for challenging Casey, Democrats as a whole don't need a childish, offensive blogger making the party look like hypocrites. Thanks a lot pal.